
Robert E. Levy
Partner
201-896-7163 rlevy@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Robert E. Levy
Date: August 14, 2014
Partner
201-896-7163 rlevy@sh-law.comThe Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit that alleged that exhibiting the artifact violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. American Atheists, Inc. v. Port Authority of N.Y. & N.J. revolves around a 17‐foot high column and cross‐beam retrieved from World Trade Center debris that gave many the impression of a Latin cross, a symbol associated with Christianity. Workers removed the beam and erected it onto a platform at the West Street edge of the recovery site, where it eventually became known as the “Cross at Ground Zero.”
Given the significance of the artifact, it was included as part of the Museum’s exhibition called “Finding Meaning at Ground Zero.”
Workers at Ground Zero struggled to come to terms with the horrific circumstances in which they found themselves. Some sought to counter the sense of utter destruction by holding on to something recognizable, whether a metal bolt or shard of glass or a marble salvaged from the debris. Others, grappling with the absence of survivors and the regular recovery of human remains, found purpose by forging relationships with relatives of a particular victim, carrying a photograph or memorial card to bolster their resolve.
The American Atheists, Inc. alleged that the display of the cross, particularly without any accompanying plaque or similar item acknowledging that atheists were among those who lost their lives on September 11, 2001, or who participated in ensuing rescue efforts, violates the Constitution’s Establishment Clause.
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the lawsuit, and the Second Circuit affirmed. In reaching its decision, the appeals court highlighted that “the Supreme Court recently reiterated that caution when, in rejecting an Establishment Clause challenge to legislative prayer, it observed that the Constitution no more permits the mandating of ‘a civic religion that stifles any but the most generic reference to the sacred’ than it permits prescribing a religious orthodoxy.”
With regard to the Cross at Ground Zero, the Court held that “an objective observer would not view the display as endorsing religion generally, or Christianity specifically, because it is part of an exhibit entitled ‘Finding Meaning at Ground Zero;’ the exhibit includes various nonreligious as well as religious artifacts that people at Ground Zero used for solace; and the textual displays accompanying the cross communicate its historical significance within this larger context.” Finally, the court found that “there is no evidence that the static display of this genuine historic artifact excessively entangles the government with religion.”
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit that alleged that exhibiting the artifact violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. American Atheists, Inc. v. Port Authority of N.Y. & N.J. revolves around a 17‐foot high column and cross‐beam retrieved from World Trade Center debris that gave many the impression of a Latin cross, a symbol associated with Christianity. Workers removed the beam and erected it onto a platform at the West Street edge of the recovery site, where it eventually became known as the “Cross at Ground Zero.”
Given the significance of the artifact, it was included as part of the Museum’s exhibition called “Finding Meaning at Ground Zero.”
Workers at Ground Zero struggled to come to terms with the horrific circumstances in which they found themselves. Some sought to counter the sense of utter destruction by holding on to something recognizable, whether a metal bolt or shard of glass or a marble salvaged from the debris. Others, grappling with the absence of survivors and the regular recovery of human remains, found purpose by forging relationships with relatives of a particular victim, carrying a photograph or memorial card to bolster their resolve.
The American Atheists, Inc. alleged that the display of the cross, particularly without any accompanying plaque or similar item acknowledging that atheists were among those who lost their lives on September 11, 2001, or who participated in ensuing rescue efforts, violates the Constitution’s Establishment Clause.
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the lawsuit, and the Second Circuit affirmed. In reaching its decision, the appeals court highlighted that “the Supreme Court recently reiterated that caution when, in rejecting an Establishment Clause challenge to legislative prayer, it observed that the Constitution no more permits the mandating of ‘a civic religion that stifles any but the most generic reference to the sacred’ than it permits prescribing a religious orthodoxy.”
With regard to the Cross at Ground Zero, the Court held that “an objective observer would not view the display as endorsing religion generally, or Christianity specifically, because it is part of an exhibit entitled ‘Finding Meaning at Ground Zero;’ the exhibit includes various nonreligious as well as religious artifacts that people at Ground Zero used for solace; and the textual displays accompanying the cross communicate its historical significance within this larger context.” Finally, the court found that “there is no evidence that the static display of this genuine historic artifact excessively entangles the government with religion.”
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!